yjacket

From Turkey . . . awesome. Welcome! I hope it is useful!

I agree with you; I just think there are much better ways to go about it than writing an article that starts off like a soft anti-Mormon diatribe. I understand; but maybe those who have a little more 'umph' so-to-speak should kindly inform those who control the other aspects of the site. What is the More Good Foundation? More Good Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that helps Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint) share their beliefs on the Internet. We operate websites and social media platforms in over 15 languages and provide tools and training to Universities, Institutes and Church Firesides. We work closely with and support other groups and foundations with like-minded missions from all over the world. More Good Foundation was created in 2005 as a solution to the overwhelming need for accurate information about the LDS faith on the Internet. It is operated by a small team of employees along with many volunteers. We feel it is not too much to ask, in this age of enlightenment and open dialogue, to let us be the ones who tell who we are, what we believe, and why our cause is going forward in such a marvelous way. With a quote from Ballard right below (see above). And yet on the front page of https://mormonhub.com/ is an article with the title "I Hate My Patriarchal Blessing". It's clickbait and certainly not a message that should ever be given considering what the https://www.moregoodfoundation.org/ supposedly stands for . . . I don't know maybe wolf in sheep's clothing? Some people might read the article and find that oh at the end, it ends in a good place. Yet most will see it, read a few sentences and move on. Is that the image the moregoodfoundation wants to cultivate? I think the article could be a very good article . . .but it needs to go back to the editing board. Quite sad; I've see another lds forum that back in the day was a pretty good forum-which has now become overrun with doubters and non-believers. It's not an openly hostile anti-mormon website-but it sure isn't a haven for believers. What type of person are you attracting and trying to attract with these types of articles? What are people going to think about themoregoodfoundation and lds.net when they read a headline like that? I have learned in life that one of the most important things in life is perception and messaging. The fact that he gets to a good place at the end doesn't matter one whit; what is the overridding message? It's stated in the title-regardless of what else he states in his article it is clear that not only does was he disappointed but that he hates his blessing. That's a really strong word to use and belies his true message-regardless of where he gets to at the end. So yes, I do think it is undermining the Church's mission by publishing articles like that. I think it is important to publicly say this stuff b/c the article links to this discussion. At least if someone from the internet saw the article and investigated it a little more they might see that a lot of LDS member severely disagree with the message.

Well let's see considering this is the same author that wrote the following articles: https://mormonhub.com/blog/buzz/congrats-trib-pulitzer-prize/ (no need to comment on this trash as the Trib is pretty anti.) and https://mormonhub.com/blog/life/celebrating-earth-day/ Celebrating Earth Day like a Mormon? For real? Do you even know the history behind earth day? http://www.briansussman.com/environment/earth-days-real-history/ http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/do-you-know-why-earth-day-is-april-22/ In other words, Earth Day was sponsored and promoted by Communists to celebrate Vladimir Lenin's 100th birthday. It was promoted by a man who had just written "The Population Bomb"-in 1970 and likened the Human Race to a cancer that was getting out of control and how we should control the Earth's population. Nothing but evil in those opinions. Is this guy just a useful idiot for the left or does he really believe these things? I think your authors need to do some more research before they start writing moronic articles and MormonHub should do a better job screening who writes for them.

Oh man; yeap I'd probably explode a bomb on her too!! So what if you read an article that says "most teachers keep snacks on hand". If you read an article that says most people drink, do you drink too. You know the world would be so so much better if people actually took care of their own crap instead of relying upon everyone else to put up their junk when they don't feel like it. At least you know what kind of a person she is now. I feeeeeel your pain . . .oh I feel it.

Again . . .what kind of drivel is this? You guys are really putting out crap articles. Snowflake generation . . .everyone must be the most awesome, most stupendous person ever . .. everyone will bow at your feet b/c your so awesome. Oh, you mean I'm actually just a regular guy trying to make it in this world and that the most important things I can do are to raise a righteous family . .. boring!! Life sucks, I hate everything b/c I'm not God's gift to the world!!! And in order to pronounce my frustration at how I'm not God's gift to the world I'll write an article and I'll title it "I HATE my Patriarchal Blessing". Well maybe that is your problem there-your attitude. Maybe God decided not to give you more insight b/c of your attitude . . . . Why does everything have to be so drama filled these days? Please, spare me the drivel.

yeap. . . thank you saw that after I typed!

Generally speaking the way these things go (with one spouse leaving the church who had previously had a strong testimony), is they will try to drag the other spouse out of the church also. It only makes sense as being unequally yolked (i.e. having a completely different worldviews), is not conducive to a strong marriage. Some members on this board can express the extreme difficulty of being married to a spouse who leaves the church (and even worse becomes antagonistic towards it). In many cases, it is the unbelieving spouse who ends up asking for a divorce-especially if the believing spouse is very believing-or they commit adultery or other such buffoonery in order to force the issue. I completely agree in this case, divorce is certainly warranted and unfortunately may be necessary.

And thus the destruction of society . . . I want my daughters growing up to believe that the most important job they can and will ever do is raising a righteous generation. Nothing, they do in life will ever come close to that monumental, sacred task. I want my son to grow up believing the most important job he can ever have is to lead his family in righteousness towards God. That no job he will ever do will make up for a lack of him being a proper leader, mentor, provider in his family. The above is (and I don't mean offense MG) is the modern secular humanistic view of the world-that it is important to do something "great", that being whatever you want is good. Except that every single one of us will die at some point-life is very, very short and very transitory. God cares not if we are "great men/women" in the eyes of the world. God cares whether we have done our best to learn to become like Him and whether we have learned the right lessons on this Earth. And those lessons do not include "being whatever you want to be" but "how do I emulate my Savior more and then how do I teach that to others?". I work to provide for my family-not for the praise and gain of the world. It is a difference of world-view. One is very secular and humanistic; the other is a focus on the things of God.

No, the best thing for your children's sake is to be raised in a home where father/mother are first husband/wife. Children have a right to be raised by parents who are more committed to each other than they are to the children. The best thing for your children is to be raised by both a man and a woman who are committed to each other in a relationship called marriage. In an ideal circumstance this would mean by the individuals who created them, in a less ideal circumstance by individuals who love them as if they created them. Oh he knows, he just doesn't want to either admit it to himself or tell you. Over time something happened to your marriage and to his faith. . . I actually do not believe that he is being a coward by suddenly proclaiming he is leaving the Church. My guess is that inside quite a while ago-he had already left the Church and God, but simply went through the motions b/c it's what you do. It was probably the same thing with the marriage-he did it b/c it is what you do, but somewhere along the way he stopped doing it with feeling and eventually he just "snapped". The road to Hell is paved one brick at a time. Nobody in a marriage just wakes up and says "Today I'm going to commit adultery!" He was already dead inside (and the marriage) before the actual adultery and before he decided to leave the Church-it's very possible that the first part in the deadening dealt with pornography. I disagree with the others that say don't feel sorry for him. I say I don't know how you can't not feel remorse, sadness and sorrow. He is someone you were planning to spend eternity with, raise children with, grow old with and now all of that is turned on its' head and may never come to pass. Personally, I've never really gotten the emotions of revenge or hatred towards those who have given away their birthright. More than anything, I have a profound sense of sadness for the potential that was but may never be realized and for the very, very rough road all the affected parties must now travel. He is solely responsible for his adultery and for that he will have to answer to God; but you are both responsible for a failed marriage and that can be quite a shocker. What should you do now . . . only God can answer that question.

That's horrible and I'm sorry. Only God can really answer the questions you are asking . . . . But I will say that your marriage and his faith was broken way, way before this. You have been divorced by deed for quite some time before he committed adultery-you probably just we completely unaware or didn't want to be aware of it. I bet if you look hard enough, you will see what I'm talking about. If you are to mend this horribly broken marriage you will need to find out and understand when, where, why and how your marriage became a sham. I will ask a probing question . . .how many kids do you have? what are their ages? and finally after you had kids what was your most important role? What was your husband's most important role? Did you identify yourself as a mother/father first or husband/wife first? In a marriage it takes two to tango and while he is the one who committed a most horrific sin-something went horribly wrong in the marriage prior to this and for that both individuals have responsibility.

What a lie; more rationalization of the notion that "do whatever you want, it's okay". Stay-at-home mom is not the same goodness of a decision as a working mother. No ifs ands or buts the ideal and the way God designed families is for the husband to provide and for the wife to nurture. To declare otherwise or even make them equivalent is a lie. I understand that some women might have to work due to life circumstances and that's okay-but the ideal and what we should strive for should not be that "it's okay whichever way you choose." The article dogs on men and says they need to step up, yet where is the counter that feminism needs to step up and stop this lie that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body b/c it "empowers" her? Belittling to men that they can't control their passions?? Well you know what there are two sides to every coin. If you didn't have women who sold their bodies to cameras and magazines and had more self-respect . . . Oh but yeah that's right, men are expected to control their passions when they see beautiful half-naked or naked women at every step of the way-go to the movies, watch news, shoot just watch ABC and they have simulated sex as the camera fades away. And don't give me the beach story as most women at the beach in bikinis are not exactly paragons of beauty. And instead of saying women should respect their bodies, men are supposed to control their emotions. Here is a brilliant idea, why don't we admit we live in a decadent society and good men and women of God are just trying to do their best to live their live's morally rather than beat up on one sex or the other.

Haha . . .that is probably what is it (at least I hope)

That absolutely could have, I guess. Maybe a different mentality. I had no clue the actual date I was coming home-I knew it would be in two years . . .but it was so far out I didn't know or care about if I was coming home on the 1st of the 15th. To figure out exact dates, you have to know the transfer schedule and then calculate the calendar, etc. pain in the neck . . .why go through the pain? IMO if you have a detailed schedule of what's happening in the 90 days after you return before you even leave-your heart is not in the right place for serving a mission.

Hmm, that is bizarre. Do they have other kids or is this their first one? I guess I could see a fairly new mother pulling this, but generally speaking if you have several kids you understand this stuff isn't the responsibility of the teacher. Sounds like the Mother is just trying to abrogate her responsibilities. She doesn't "have enough time" (which is just an excuse not a reason) and she doesn't want her baby eating cafeteria food. (Sounds like a spoiled grown-up to me). Either have your kid eat the cafeteria lunches or make time to fix 'em lunch . .. that's part of being a responsible adult with your own kids (a.k.a being a parent!). We are all pressed for time-but who cares-we still have to take care of our own responsibilities and not shirk it to the next schmoe. And if you truly need help-there are plenty of places that can provide that help! Yes maybe your pride might take a little bit of a hit, but if you need help you are a) honest and upfront about why you need the help and b) go to the right source that can help you.

I try MG . . . I try :-).

I would also say that as much heartbreak as it is-let the kid starve. I'm actually surprised this is an option though as if my kids ever forget their lunches the school forces them to eat the cafeteria lunch and then bills us; and since we already provided the kids with lunch that they just forgot-the bill gets passed to them in a form of fine taken from their allowance :-) It won't kill them, kids don't need that much to eat-the young ones anyways, if mom wants kid to have snacks she can send them. Really, you could probably buy enough snacks for the kid for a week @ $10. If they really are that poor, that's what Church is for (or since they probably don't go to church they can go on the dole and get welfare/WICA and suck on taxpayer money). Now if you see that the child is getting emaciated, etc. clearly from not having enough food-that is another story entirely and that is when the Christlike thing to do is to step in and figure out what is going on for the kids health sake.

No, No and No. No it is not your responsibility, no you are not being unChristlike and I would tell them flat out no. Your kid, your responsibility to fed 'em. You don't want to deal with that responsibility-don't have kids.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement fully. I think about what the term engagement means. When used in a non-dating fashion people say, "I have a speaking engagement on the 27th". Or "I can't I have a prior engagement". IMO engagement comes with a date. If one is engaged but there is no date, I personally don't consider that an engagement. So if the young lady got engaged but there was no date attached to that engagement, I don't consider it really an engagement. I think with an engagement comes an understanding that the couple will begin preparations for a wedding that will occur on the pre-arraigned date and that they are both committed to seeing that event come to pass on that date. Barring a change in circumstances, the intent is for on x day for the couple to be married. That change in circumstances can be a whole host of things-timing issues, realization that you don't want to be married to this person, whatever. But ultimately for getting engaged there should be a date fixed to it with the understanding that we will prepare for that date. In spanish the word for your beau is "promitido" or promised. That's why in the case of the missionary who left, it was a really dumb move on both parties and I'm not sure I can really see them as engaged. They might have said it-but 2 years is a good while and unless they had a date picked out prior to him leaving I can't see how it is really an engagement. I think all the missionary was really probably trying to do was to take her off the market for two years, so he could have a sure thing when he got back. That shows immaturity, a lot changes in 2 years-especially for young adults. To expect her to be engaged to him for two years was an extremely selfish move on his part . . . and it didn't work out well at all.

@Bill (Papa) Lee @JohnsonJones The OP lied. The OP was either a 17 year-old girl pretending to be her mother telling this story (and the story may or may not have been true), or a complete sock poppet. Don't know which but regardless the OP completely misrepresented who she was.

It's called infatuation. It may develop into a sustained love that a marriage is based on, or it may not. But a lasting relationship is not built on infatuation; it can be the first step to something bigger.

Fickle, fickle irresponsible immature women. My advice, try to ensure that the next woman you date is an actual grow-up not some child in an adult's body. And by the same token-be a grown-up yourself-otherwise she won't want to date you!

What the heck?? I hope he is getting ex'd. What is this a reality TV show? One reason why I do not let my kids watch TV. They see this crap, think it's acceptable and then end up living their life like a drama reality show . . .so much bad crap in today's society (le sigh).

I think to be or not to be the mother-that is the question. Is it nobler in the mind to suffer the sling and arrows of duplicitous or to take arms against it? And by opposing it, end it. Hmm Deep Thoughts . . .

We have largely forgotten as a society that failure is the best teacher, the best giver of wisdom, the best refiners fire. Because after you "fail" a few times, you come to realize that there really isn't any such thing as failure. It just becomes one deviation, one sidetrack on the road to success. Success is a windy, curvy road-but the only time you ever truly fail is when you simply give up and quit. And if you never learn that lesson early in life with no frustrations with everything being handed on a platter-then when life knocks the socks off you and you go down one major deviation you really do end up being a failure b/c you simply quit.

I agree, I just meant that in this instance (since I'm very ill-informed to the particulars of the case and do not know anything about the guy) I assume that the jury made the right decision-at least I hope so. But you are right, plenty of convictions have been overturned (it is quite appalling on some of the DNA cases that overturned a conviction the actual details of the trail and conviction) where the jury did not make the right decision.